Accredit Betvoyager Already.

[Jufo]

Thank you for this useful post! I was definitely mistaken.

I just ran a basic simulation on no-edge roulette. $100 deposit, $5 at a time, 20x playthrough, and ended up with a mean final value of $96.1097. The per-spin edge on that is pretty damn close to 0.

Did you already incorporate the withdrawal and commission to the simulation? With zero house edge the mean after wagering any amount would be $100 (but of course it varies from one simulation to next).

You could try simulating something like this: Deposit $100 and make spins on no-zero roulette (you can choose what to bet on). Withdraw the whole balance if you reach $400 balance, and thus you pay $30 commission from net winnings. Divide this $30 commission across total amount wagered so far.
This simulation would give an rough estimate of the house edge for this particular betting strategy.

[jelsmith]

And yes I agree with the OP that Betvoyager deserves to be accredited simply because of their transparent and unique way of running a casino. If they simply deserve to be accredited as such I don't understand why they would need to contact CM first?

Because like Max said they would have responsibility to adhere to the accreditation policies. Bryan doesnt approve casinos whilly nilly.

[Nifty29]

Who is Whilly Nilly?

Did he delete his post or something?

I must have missed it ...unless jel is talking to her invisible friends again ...

[Glunn11]

Did you already incorporate the withdrawal and commission to the simulation? With zero house edge the mean after wagering any amount would be $100 (but of course it varies from one simulation to next).

You could try simulating something like this: Deposit $100 and make spins on no-zero roulette (you can choose what to bet on). Withdraw the whole balance if you reach $400 balance, and thus you pay $30 commission from net winnings. Divide this $30 commission across total amount wagered so far.
This simulation would give an rough estimate of the house edge for this particular betting strategy.

Yes, I neglected to mention that I did include the commission on that [the figure for final value was starting value + (end value - starting value) * .9]. I am using the Mersenne Twister RNG and have gotten pretty accurate figures on other casino games, so I'm not too worried about it being too off in that regard.

Running that simulation, I got an average amount wagered per cycle of $2993.85. Wins occurred 1/4 of the time, so the RNG appears to be in order.

-30 / 2993.85 = -0.0100205421

You'd divide this by 4 though, right, since commission is only taken out 1/4 of the time? My program's Expected Value per Cycle and the return formula:

(1/4) * 270 + (3/4) * -100 = -7.5
seem to agree with that notion.

-7.5 / 2993.85 = -0.00250513553

This was done with $10 bets. $25 bets have an average total wagered of around $1200, and $50 bets have an average total wagered of about $600. I can't seem to figure out what exactly that means. Regardless of the bet size, though, the EV per cycle (according to the program) always stays at -$7.50, and the odds of winning stay at 25%.
-----------------------------------------------
To add to the OP, I don't have any experience with BetVoyager, but I think the casino needs to demonstrate that it's interested in dealing with player issues through this forum directly before it should be accredited. I think its transparent approach to online gaming should be commended, but they need to make the effort to reach out to the players first imo.

[jelsmith]

Who is Whilly Nilly?

Did he delete his post or something?

I must have missed it ...unless jel is talking to her invisible friends again ...

oh Nifty that was a reference to where GDAY resides

[Jufo]

Yes, I neglected to mention that I did include the commission on that [the figure for final value was starting value + (end value - starting value) * .9]. I am using the Mersenne Twister RNG and have gotten pretty accurate figures on other casino games, so I'm not too worried about it being too off in that regard.

Running that simulation, I got an average amount wagered per cycle of $2993.85. Wins occurred 1/4 of the time, so the RNG appears to be in order.

-30 / 2993.85 = -0.0100205421

You'd divide this by 4 though, right, since commission is only taken out 1/4 of the time? My program's Expected Value per Cycle and the return formula:

(1/4) * 270 + (3/4) * -100 = -7.5
seem to agree with that notion.

-7.5 / 2993.85 = -0.00250513553

This was done with $10 bets. $25 bets have an average total wagered of around $1200, and $50 bets have an average total wagered of about $600. I can't seem to figure out what exactly that means. Regardless of the bet size, though, the EV per cycle (according to the program) always stays at -$7.50, and the odds of winning stay at 25%.

Yes I agree with your maths above and those calculations backed up the point I was trying to make with 10% commission being more favourable to the player in the long term than a constant house edge. The chances to make $100 -> $400 in roulette against 2.70% house edge would be considerable less than 25% over a sequence of bets.

Larger bets (in your simulation $25 and $50) have less average wagering because you either bust or quadruble bankroll much faster. This, of course, increases house edge as you pay same amount of commission for less wagered but your chances to quadruble are still always 25% independent of bet size.

Another benefit of the Betvoyager system is that you always know the 'price' or 'rake' of your gambling activity. Like you calculated the EV is always -$7.50 in this example, so this is the fixed price you pay for the action and for the chance to win a predefined amount. With regular casino games that carry house edge the price of gambling goes up the more you play (as you accumulates more and more house edge) which penalizes you the longer your play. This is the main reason why the system used at Betvoyager is more beneficial for regular gamblers I think.

[Glunn11]

Thanks Jufo! That's really handy stuff to know.

Also, I'd genuinely like to commend these guys on their Terms and Conditions page. You know how many terms there are? Eight. There are eight terms. Not eight pages like other casinos.

[TopAff]

To whomever it may concern;
I am no affiliate of any kind or have any vested interested. But I really think BV needs to be looked upon and graded as it so deserves. It has a mechanism where you can compare a certain set amount of decisions to the pre-fabricated decisions already determined and see if they are identical to prove that their is no cheating algorithym (Checksum). Only one of it's kind in this industry and the only RNG casino I would play at. It deserves attention and can't be in the back burner anymore. No odds games too if you are interested but they do take 10% of your winning withdrawals so it could be comparable, better or less favorable than regular casino odds depending on how you play and how much you win, I guess so that is kind of a wash there. Nevertheless, this casino needs to be seriously looked at since it very is the next 3Dice phenomenon. I don't trust any RNG's but this, period.

I would never play there.. I think you are working for them. This casino should not be advertised by CM.

[Diane]

I would never play there.. I think you are working for them. This casino should not be advertised by CM.

I would go back to Max's statement that this is up to Bryan, Bryan's standards and how he decides the process should work.

We trust his accreditation process that has served us well. It's not for us to say unless he asks for our opinions. Which I really don't expect him to do.

If I ran across a site that I felt was worth of being accredited by him, I would send Bryan a PM and let him know my opinion. It's not a popularity contest, its a matter of if they fit the profile and expectations established by CM to be on the accredited list. Objective not subjective.

IMO

Diane

[maxd]

If they simply deserve to be accredited as such I don't see why they would need to contact CM first?

As has been mentioned, see my previous post:

There are a number of expectations and responsibilities for Accred casinos so they have to be interested and willing to go that extra distance.

It's not just a matter of "thumbs up, great casino!" They need to agree to adhere to the Accred guidelines, they need to assign a rep and agree to respond in a timely fashion to issues, etc etc.

In other words it's a relationship not a rubber stamp. There are lots of fine casinos out there but not all of them are looking to enter into that kind of ongoing commitment. If they are they know where to find us.

It's not a popularity contest, its a matter of if they fit the profile and expectations established by CM to be on the accredited list.

True, but it's important to remember the ongoing commitment and responsibilities part of it. Many casinos aren't ready for that kind of close relationship, they often prefer to go it alone. And if that's working for them then who's to say otherwise.